G.R. No. 78051 November 8, 1989
ISAGANI M. JUNGCO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and G. A. MACHINERIES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

G.A. Machineries, Inc. (GAMI) filed a complaint for collection against Isagani M. Jungco. Jungco filed his answer, and the case proceeded to pre-trial. After reassignment to a new branch, the trial court set the case for pre-trial on March 22, 1985. Jungco failed to appear at this scheduled pre-trial. The trial court, finding that Jungco’s counsel had been duly notified via a notice of hearing with a corresponding return card, declared him as in default and allowed GAMI to present evidence ex-parte. Jungco filed motions to set aside the order of default, which were denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in declaring Jungco as in default for his failure to appear at the pre-trial conference.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Appearance at a pre-trial conference is mandatory under Section 1, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court. The trial court has the discretion, under Section 2 of the same Rule, to declare a party who fails to appear as in default. The Court upheld the trial court’s factual finding, based on the return card, that Jungco’s counsel was duly notified of the March 22, 1985 pre-trial. Such factual findings are entitled to great weight. The Court distinguished this case from Continental Leaf Tobacco (Phil.) Inc. v. IAC, which involved a default for failure to file an answer. Here, Jungco had filed an answer but failed to appear at pre-trial. Consequently, a motion to set aside an order of default issued for non-appearance at pre-trial, unlike a default for non-filing of an answer, does not require a showing of a meritorious defense, as such defenses are already alleged in the answer. The proper remedy was a motion for reconsideration. The petition was denied, and the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed.